46-A-wp1332.18.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1332 OF 2018 Vijay Hiraman Lanjewar -Vs.- Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & anr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.A.C.Dharmadhikari, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.N.R.Saboo, Adv.for the respondents. CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2025 The petition questions the initiation of the enquiry against the petitioner, in respect of incidences, which are of the years 2010 to 2012, in which it is alleged, that because of the negligence of the petitioner, there is a loss of food grains, for which the petitioner is responsible. 2. It is an admitted position, that the petitioner was governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules (for short “MCS Pension Rules”). It is also an admitted position that the petitioner stood superannuated on 31/05/2011 and the charge-sheet came to be served upon him on 02/01/2017, which relate to the incidences from 2010 to 2012. 3. Mr.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites our attention to the decision in Suresh KHUNTE 2025:BHC-NAG:1513-DB 46-A-wp1332.18.odt 2/3 Pralhad Gajbhiye v. Chairmain and Managing Director, Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and another (Writ Petition No. 6045 of 2023) dated 03/12/2024, in which a similar issue has been considered by us and it has been held that in terms of Rule 27(2)(b)(ii) of the MCS Pension Rules, continuation of an enquiry, in respect of incidences, which do not fall within a period of four years prior to such institution are impermissible. Considering the dates mentioned above, in respect of which, there is no dispute, it is clearly apparent, that the initiation of the enquiry by issuance of the charge-sheet on 02/01/2017, is in respect of incidences, which are between 2010 to 2012, which is clearly beyond the period as indicated by Rule 27(2)(b)(ii) of the MCS Pension Rules. 4. Though Mr.Saboo, learned counsel for the respondents, submits, that the decision to take the action against the petitioner for loss caused to the respondents, was taken in the meeting dated 15/12/2024, however, the language of Rule 27(2)(b)(ii) of the MCS Pension Rules excludes such a possibility, as it uses the expression “in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution”, which would rule out any decision by the employer, regarding any loss being caused to be the starting point for calculating the period of four years, as contemplated by the aforesaid Rule. We therefore, find that the continuation of the enquiry against the petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 02/01/2017, is contrary to the mandate of Rule 27(2)(b)(ii) of the MCS Pension Rules, and cannot be sustained, on account of which, it is hereby KHUNTE 46-A-wp1332.18.odt 3/3 quashed and set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms, resultant to which, it is declared, that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the balance amount of EPF and gratuity after deducting the amounts, which have already been paid to the petitioner, either by the employer or by the orders of this Court. The plea for interest, however, is turned down. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (ABHAY J. MANTRI,J) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J) KHUNTE